Taft client Candice Martin brought wrongful death and survival claims on behalf of her deceased husband, Rodney Martin, against his former employer Goodrich Corp. Martin alleged Rodney was exposed to harmful chemicals at Goodrich’s manufacturing plant in the 1960s and 1970s, causing him to develop an aggressive form of liver cancer in 2019, from which he died the following year. Goodrich moved to dismiss Martin’s case, arguing Rodney’s injuries were compensable, if at all, under Illinois’ Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (ODA), which provides employees who are injured by exposure to harmful substances in the workplace no-fault recovery against their employers through an administrative regime. In exchange for the no-fault liability, however, the ODA bars plaintiffs from filing civil claims in court against employers. Goodrich thus argued Martin’s claims were barred by the ODA’s exclusive remedy provisions, and that she was not entitled to an administrative recovery because Rodney’s cancer did not timely develop within the statutory timeframes for seeking compensation under the ODA. A federal district court denied Goodrich’s motion to dismiss but certified several legal questions to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to determine whether recent amendments to the ODA permitted Martin to pursue her claims in court. However, the Seventh Circuit found it was unable to confidently answer those questions and accordingly certified them to the Illinois Supreme Court for guidance on issues arising under Illinois law.

On Jan. 24, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, answering the Seventh Circuit’s three certified questions in Martin’s favor. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois General Assembly’s amendments to the ODA allow plaintiffs to seek relief in court under certain circumstances, waiving the statute’s exclusive remedy provisions when an employee’s injury does not manifest within the ODA’s limitations periods. The Illinois Supreme Court also found that the ODA amendments did not violate due process guarantees under the Illinois Constitution because the amendments became effective before Rodney’s cancer diagnosis and thus properly applied to Martin’s civil case. In so holding, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected Goodrich’s argument that the amended ODA retroactively revived otherwise time-barred claims because Rodney’s exposure occurred decades ago, deciding Goodrich did not enjoy a right to assert the exclusive remedy provisions as an affirmative defense unless and until Rodney was injured, which occurred after the General Assembly’s amendments became effective. The result of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision means the federal district court correctly denied Goodrich’s motion to dismiss, and that Martin may properly pursue her civil claims against Goodrich.

Taft attorneys Tim Eaton, Jon Amarilio, and Adam Decker represented Martin in the Illinois Supreme Court and achieved a unanimous victory on her behalf.

Eaton and Amarilio are co-chairs of the firm’s Appellate group. Eaton has a distinguished career in commercial and appellate litigation, as well as arbitration, and has been involved in a number of high-profile cases. Amarilio is especially experienced representing clients in the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Decker advises businesses and C-level executives on litigation matters relating to contracts, business disputes and claims.